DevSolar

Welcome!

Hello DevSolar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia

How to edit a page

Help pages

Tutorial

How to write a great article

Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Solar

Hallo DevSolar!

Ich schaue im Moment nur mal flüchtig über die Artikel im Project on German football und gebe denen dann nach meiner Einschätzung eine "Note". Sinn der Übung ist, dass man anschließend ganz gut schauen kann, welche Artikel überarbeitet werden sollten (hohe Bedeutung bei niedriger Qualität) Dieses Vorgehen kann natürlich mal schiefgehen und Du kannst die Bewertung jederzeit ändern, falls Du der Meinung bist, sie sei unangemessen, aber auch auf den zweiten Blick scheint sie mir im Fall des SC Verl zutreffend zu sein.

Der Artikel hat derzeit keine Inlince Citations. Das ist eine Grundvoraussetzung für einen B-Class Artikel. (schau mal unter Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Assessment und klappe die Kriterien für einen B-Class Artikel auf). Wahrscheinlich stützen die External references, die Du angibst, das was in dem Artikel steht. Das habe ich nicht überprüft. Wie gesagt: Evaluation auf den ersten Blick. Aber bei einem B-Class Artikel sollten die meisten Fakten zumindest grob durch Inlince Citations abgedeckt werden. Supporting Materials sind bisher auch nicht so recht vorhanden (von dem Wappen und dem Trikot mal abgesehen).

Der Artikel ist auch nicht sehr umfangreich. Das ist nicht abwertend gemeint und es ist vielleicht auch weder leicht noch unbedingt nötig bei einem 4. Ligisten einen 20seitigen Artikel zu haben, aber die Grundstruktur für einen Vereinsartikel sollte wie hier beschrieben aussehen. Was da steht ist natürlich nicht alles notwendig für einen B-Class Artikel, aber als Anregung ist es nicht schlecht, denke ich.

Ich hoffe die Antwort hilft, ansonsten einfach rück- und weiterfragen...

Grüße, OdinFK (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Mabach

Sir,
I really don’t know what you’re talking about me editing “MaBach Engines.” I know nothing about German tank engines (though I confess, I was under the impression they ran on diesel, not gas, and that only Americans were stupid enough to use gasoline in tank engines, but that’s really neither here nor there I suppose). Uh, ¿are you SURE you got the right guy? Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Vfrickey...

...if you have a problem communicating with other people (as opposed to condescend to them), that's your problem, not mine. I would suggest checking out the talk page guidelines, both with regards to the article talk page in question and your conduct on your own talk page. But there you are, I'm keeping away from "your" talk page since it apparently upsets you so much.

On a sidenote, I don't care two cents whether you are the user I disagreed with earlier in the article, or any other article. I try to actively not keep track of past conduct. I would have given feedback to any user who repeatedly edits year-old talk page entries if it came to my attention - and will continue to do so, with the noteable exception of your person. Harrassing, my behind. -- DevSolar (talk) 08:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Cobalt Bombs

Bonjour Monsieur,

My apologies for such a late response, I was overseas in the United States for talks and presentations and I just arrived back in France to receive this email. In answer to your question, my reasoning would be because the radiation case is now made of cobalt. It used to be uranium-238, and from the page for "Hohlraum", "The casing's purpose is to contain and focus the energy of the primary (fission) stage in order to implode the secondary (fusion) stage." In this way, the first explosion would instantly fuse the cobalt, but it isn't until the second explosion that the cobalt is actually distributed. Whereas, should the tamper be made of cobalt, the direct explosion, from the fission bomb, would disperse the new fused cobalt-60 more quickly and efficiently for it is spread through the first explosion of the actual fuel. (But of course, this may be because we are dealing with a fission and fusion bomb, where both designs differ.) According to these designs, in a fusion bomb, the cobalt would be surrounded by the nuclear fuel and is being used to focus the explosion rather than being exploded (Teller-Ulam design) where as, in a fission bomb, (the Little Boy gun-model, or even the implosion design for Fat Man) the cobalt actually surrounds the fuel.

I hope these explanations could help answer your question, if not, feel free to reply back.

--Parronax (talk) 2:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course, if you feel that way, I do not mind you changing it, should you deem this extraneous information.

--Parronax (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

T92

Sorry for the long wait: The original redirect went to 'substitution model' I have no idea why it would link there instead of to a tank or something. I mean what does T92 have to do with it anyway?